S.P.Meenal vs. N.Rajalakshmi
Facts
The petitioner, S.P. Meenal, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) seeking an extension of time to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-. This cost was imposed by an order dated 25.10.2021 in CRP(MD) No. 70 of 2021. The petitioner stated that the order copy was not uploaded until 15.11.2021, and her counsel attempted to pay the cost to the respondent's counsel, who refused to accept it. The respondent's counsel argued that the trial court had not proceeded with the trial due to a memo filed by the petitioner regarding the pending CMP, and suggested the cost be deposited before the trial court. The High Court noted that the order was uploaded on 26.10.2021 and the copy was issued on 18.11.2021, and that the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within three months of receiving the order copy.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for extension of time. The petitioner was granted an extension of one week to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the credit of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Advocates Welfare Fund by 25.02.2022. Upon receipt of this deposit, the petitioner was permitted to deposit the original cost of Rs. 5,000/- before the trial court within one week thereafter. The reasoning was based on the facts presented by the petitioner regarding the delay in receiving the order copy and the refusal to accept payment, balanced against the respondent's submission about the trial court's proceedings being affected. The Court imposed a partial payment to the welfare fund as a condition for the extension.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time for payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by this Court's order dated 25.10.2021 in CRP(MD) No. 70 of 2021, and if so, on what conditions? (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to procedural compliance and equity). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in payment was due to the non-upload of the order copy until 15.11.2021 and the refusal of the respondent's counsel to accept the cost payment. Therefore, an extension was necessary. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the trial court's proceedings were stalled because of the petitioner's memo regarding the pending CMP. The respondent suggested that the cost should be deposited before the trial court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Civil Appellate Juri iction Thur ay, the Twenty fourth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CMP(MD)NO 10040 of 2021 in CRP(MD). No.70 of 2021 S.P.Meenal W/o.Late. Sukirtharajan 11b Glasskara Street, Madurai.
... Petitioner/petitioner. Vs 1 N.Rajalakshmi W/o.Rajendran 372e Lakshmi Vilas Gst Road Pasumalai Madurai.
... Respondent/Respondent Prayer in CMP :- Civil Miscellaneous petition filed Under Section 148 of CPC. To Extend the time for payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- for another two weeks form 15.11.2021, as per the order made in CRP(MD) NO.70/2021 dt.25.10.2021 on the file of Madras High court Madurai Bench and thus render justice. Prayer in CRP :-
Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of India. To call for the records relating with the Fair and Executable order date 17-02-2020 made in I.A.No. 143 of 2020 in O.S.No.443 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam and to set aside the same with costs and thus ren
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.